4th Century

It's the one where Christians are colossal hypocrites

To be honest, most of these "neo-pagans" don't know jack shit about paganism. This guy is obviously not a pagan since norse paganism is strictly anti-homosexuality.

all the more reason we need jesus

strictly anti-homo eh? how would you know that? did it say it in the pagan bible? oh wait thats right, there is no pagan bible or any other authoritative document for norse paganism because they were illiterate snowniggers and neo-paganism is based on nothing more than the autistic fantasies of 19th century occultists! hahaha

>if its not explicitly banned in writing, that means it was acceptable!

Abrahamic Logic, everyone.

You know, it's ok to be ignorant about something, but when you try to be sarcastic about something you have no clue of, you just make yourself look like an absolute retard. Read the fucking Hávamál, nigger. It's very clear about the ancient nordic's views on homosexuality.

the havamal was written down by christians in the 13th century you goofball. if you think that it accurately reflects the true beliefs of the ancient nordics then you are really dumb.

You are the one making dumb statements about ancient religions. I mentioned the best source we have showing you're most likely wrong. You can also read the same thing from roman writings about germanic culture.

You mean 5th century.

i dunno man maybe you should email [email protected] because she says she hears from odin directly which sounds a lot more reliable than your guesswork from what the romans said. why should people believe that roman junk when we got wise women who the gods talk to themselves??

are you trying to make fun of ancient cults you admittedly no nothing about or just the modern neo-pagan hippies? cause you know, I can say a thing or two about christians too. what's up with that pope of yours kissing muslim feet?

im saying why the heck should we listen to what some dead latinos said when chicks can hear the aesir RIGHT NOW?

>it was ok then
>that means it's ok now!

Christians are really proud of their stupidity, aren't they?

I dunno.

Why should we listen to what some dead Jews say when there are chicks that claim to be able to speak to God RIGHT NOW?

An individual's personal divine revelation must be measured against what God has already revealed about Himself in the Holy Scriptures.

You have no way of actually assessing whether what the dead Jews wrote was divine revelation or not, any more than you know whether Crazy Sue is actually speaking to God.

I choose to believe the prophets and apostles.

That's not a credible explanation for why someone else should and is staggering hypocrisy given the questions you were just throwing at the pagan losers.

If you can just choose to believe so can they.

Then you're no better than any fedora-wearing Neo-pagan.

Will you deny Christ at the barrel of a gun?

duh they can choose but i was poking fun at them because they dont have any historical documents written from a pagan viewpoint as you can see in this post with the doubles right here

the bible is special because it is really old but i bet you knew that already

anyways i gotta go to bed but i will pray for you

goodnight goofball

>the bible is special because it is really old but i bet you knew that already

So is the Koran.

Goodnight and thanks for praying for me. I don't mind if you want to sacrifice a goat for me as well. :-)

I'm pretty sure that you've never talked to them personally or even read the original texts.
Meaning can change drastically during translation and most versions of the bible went through several translations before you even get your hands on them.

What you think is "the word of god" is what people wrote down from memory thousands of years ago, very likely bringing their own interpretation into it, then translated at least twice over the span of centuries, each time by a person who very likely brought their own agenda into it.

We are pathetic beta faggots who used evil trickery to brutally opress big tall strong pagans

t. Every limp wristed 80 pound skelly with a beer belly, unfortunate facial feauters, beard to cover up the nochin who listens to amon amarth

The only people i know that dont look white are neo pagans, all are unwashed metal heads with long curly hair, one looks like chink and the other looks like a turk, they gather in the woods with some other friends and larp as pagans. Requesting the norse "heathen" compilation.

>I am a real pagan everyone else is a pretentious neo-pagan faggot who don't even really believe in Thur and Oden and Wallhallers
Makes you think.

That's a bad argument. A lot of work has gone into textual criticism of the bible and the better modern bibles are based on direct (and as accurate as possible) translation from early manuscripts.

It's such a shame all that effort and brainpower didn't something more useful.

>Pagans/secularist are innocent
you tell them, sister!

>a few centuries

You mean ten?

Randomly conflating people who have another religion to you and the non-religious is a very bad faith argument.

And many religious people, both past and present, including the Founding Fathers of the US for example, were secularists.

>randomly
you don't know these two men in picture are, do you?

>And many religious people, both past and present, including the Founding Fathers of the US for example, were secularists.
That's not what OP is arguing about. Regardless, we shouldn't assume just because

Obviously I know who Stalin is. I have to admit I don't recognise the sculpture on the right, maybe you could enlighten me in a non-shitposting way.

It was you who used the word secularists, not OP.

>be a Christian
>follow a religion that tells you to be humble, compassionate and specifically tells you not to judge others
>act really arrogant, never put yourself into anyone's shoes and judge others constantly

Is there any group out there more hypocritical and more the antithesis of their own beliefs than Christians on Veeky Forums? Because I honestly can't think of one

The Church didn't have any real political power until the 7th century, where a handful of exceedingly rich and powerful Kings who were essentially Romaboo's wanted to convert, be Roman as possible, and appease the Pope. You are severely overestimating the spread of Christianity via violence in the 4th, 5th, and 6th centuries. Christians set up toll-free waystations, invented the hospital system, and gave away massive amounts of their time and skills in volunteer work in an effort to look as not-Jewish as possible.

>The most evil people in the world have been Christian
Schlomo please.

Proof that sand religion hindered worlds progress

>specifically tells you not to judge others

It doesn't at all.
It says don't judge others if you don't want to be judged yourself.
Christians judged pagans to be non-christian while being quite welcoming of judgement in the same matter.

You're rather rather missing the point of the story, which is that everyone is a sinner and that you should look at your own sins first, if you think you don't have any then you're wrong.

A central belief of Christianity is that it's every Christian's duty to spread the word of God and convert the unfaithful if they can. You would know that if your knowledge went further than Pastor Cletus' Sunday sermons in rural buttfuck, America.

So if someone does think he has plenty of sins and is fine with being judged, he can judge others.

This "don't judge" thing isn't christian, it's just contemporary progressive nonsense, the usual "having standards is evil".

Yeah, totally why the crowd dispersed and Jesus sent the adulteress on her way.

That is not the point of the story at all.

Jesus is not saying "go ahead and stone this bitch to death".

>This "don't judge" thing isn't christian, it's just contemporary progressive nonsense

It's not contemporary, but yes, most certainly modern scholarship has shown the entire passage is likely to be fake and not a part of the original autograph so probably not part of original Christianity.

I've never even been to America.

That's a totally different story in another gospel, you fucking moron. AND it's a late addition to the bible.

"Judge not" is from the sermon on the mount you ignorant fool.

CHRISTIANITY IS THE RELIGION OF PEACE

If I come to power I'll give christians rights :D

Luckily by being a European Catholic I know that all which survived of pagan traditions is incorporated in my religion.

In fact, it most likely exclusively survived in Catholicism, barring the remnants of paganism in North Eastern Europe.

Vice always seems to find the weirdest shit.

This. Larpy pagans ITT, read Evola's Pagan Imperialism. Catholicism is a revitalization of European religion, in Rome paganism had become a mere superstition, all the upper classes were either converting to other religions or skepticism.

>in Rome paganism had become a mere superstition, all the upper classes were either converting to other religions or skepticism.

This is wrong on every level.
First of all, the upper class wasn't a monolithic entity, there was a spectrum of belief.
Also, there was a difference between the rural pagan beliefs and what the educated class believed more frequently. No, they didn't believe Zeus actually slept around with goddesses but yes, they did believe Zeus was a real being with real influence on the mortal realm and whose favors could be obtained through prayer and whose plans could be understood through divination. Also planets, stars, the world and so on were seen as gods.

Is skepticism the Atheist fedora of their time?

whatchu gonna do nigga? pray about it?

its the same mob mentality. when you are the weak, you covet and serve; when you are the stronger, you fear them becoming a problem and massacre them.

>His boyfriend used to be a woman, his wife used to be a man, and Raven himself used to be a woman
I will never accept transexuality.

source

For which of the claims.

Read Cicero's De Natura Deorum to get a real perspective on an educated Roman patrician's idea concerning paganism. Yes they had all sorts of intellectualized conceptions about the gods, which conceptions would be passed around and changed like clothes. The thing about intellectualized conceptions is that they don't command belief, and ultimately lead to skepticism. Only a fresh revealed religion in Christianity could (and did) revitalize religion in Europe.

Bring it.

What are:
>The GMP
>Grimorium Verum
>Coming Forth by Day
>The Pyramid Texts
>The Coffin Texts
>The Maqlu Texts
>The Lilith incantations
>The Ginza Rba
>The Yazidi Qwele
>Literally every source text for Hindi faiths
>Grimoire of Arthur Gauntlet
>Piles of Neoplatonism
>etc.

I've always found the discussions here on Paganism in general to be facile at best.

>all which survived of pagan traditions is incorporated in my religion
Not particularly but the St. Cyprian texts help.

>First of all, the upper class wasn't a monolithic entity, there was a spectrum of belief.
Moreover, it would seem that devoted cults would wax and wane through cycles of relevance while established mystery cults continued to operate on the periphery more or less uninterrupted until the Christian eras.

>De Natura Deorum
Good, but still a touch late; I'd say a decent source is the procession of designs on funerary containers.

>norse paganism is strictly anti-homosexuality.
Well, "Paganism", or - more aptly - traditional European religion, wasn't really a singular, neat little block like Christian religion is structured. Rather, traditional religion was composed of many non-exclusive sub-categories which served specific spiritual needs with some overlap.

What most people think of as "Paganism" is actually civic theology, just one specific element of traditional religion. This is the sacrifices, the public cults, the domestic cults, etc. This type of theology was amoral - not immoral, but amoral. This theology simply had nothing to say on what was moral or immoral, ethical or unethical. Those questions were outside the purview of civic theology, generally. Rather, questions of ethics and morality, as well as questions of things such as ontology and metaphysics, were in the jurisdiction of natural theology - under which the ancient philosophic traditions should be categorized. Not just that, but "homosexuality" wasn't really an idea that was around in that region at that time. Rather, sexual dynamics were framed as between "those who fuck" and "those who are fucked." The fuckers, aka the ones who penetrate, those who are physically on top during sex, the active participants, those who are receptive during oral sex, etc, are considered masculine. The fucked, aka the ones who are penetrated, are physically on the bottom during sex, the passive participants, those who do the pleasuring during oral sex, etc, are feminine. In Norse society, it was socially taboo to be a man who takes a feminine role during sex but perfectly fine if they took the masculine role, regardless of whether they are having sex with another man or a woman.

TL;DR in Norse society, you were a faggot if you let a woman ride you or ate her pussy, but you were straight as an arrow when fucking another man as long as you were the top.

I've already read it, and if you came out of it thinking cicero doesn't believe in the gods I think you skipped the last sentence of the book.

>Only a fresh revealed religion in Christianity could (and did) revitalize religion in Europe

Religion didn't need any kind of revitalizing, as shown by the fact that it survived for so long after christianity became the religion of the empire.

...

...

I normal don't give shit about 'cultural appropriation', syncretism and trading of ideas across countries and people is prefectly natural, but I don't get why someone of convert to the folk religon of a differnt culture of race. I mean you don't get many white hindus, shintoist or taoists, even tough aspects of it get a lot of appreciation from westerners.

>Hinduism
>source texts
You have some learning to do, buddy

...

>the vedas and the upanishads don't count.

they don't because Hinduism was not a single faith until a bunch of indigenous religions were lumped together by the British and called Hinduism. That's why belief is so varied and fluid, because it was never a single faith to begin with.

Atheist isn't a group of people
It's an exculsionary category
Scientific pantheism will take over and as we are reminded of our reliance on earth more and more nature worship will make a comeback, I bet ya

It's exactly like your comparison. Christianity was the SJW movement of its time. Preaching peace, love, and everyone is your brother (globalism) but at the same time advocating violent suppression of people you disagree with. They wanted to genocide the pagans, just like SJWs want to genocide the white male.

>atheists come to power

Jokes.

>it wasn't the same religion.
>worship the same or similar gods, have a relatively common corpus of myths that assimilate local cultures over time.
>the books mentioned are large parts of the aforementioned mythology and worldview.

>worship literally a million different gods
>have different cosmologies and origin stories
>point to a few transliterated texts 1000+ years later as the "source" texts of the religion
>Still worship different gods in different ways
>it was the same religion

This is why Catholics aren't Christian

Except I'm referring to specific internal cults, such as the Kaula or the Trika, when I made the reference.

Paganism simply means "non-Christian" or possibly 'folk religion' as opposed to the cosmopolitan acceptance of a given centralized faith.

If the Trika texts don't count for 'pagan' I'd like to know what exactly does.

fair point.

>>atheists come to power
Lol

>Luckily by being a European Catholic I know that all which survived of pagan traditions is incorporated in my religion.

Wrong board, this isn't /x/

>Paganism simply means "non-Christian" or possibly 'folk religion'
Embracing the word "pagan" is like national socialist embracing the word "nazi" or communist embracing the word "commie"

The components of a religion are very much Veeky Forums related.

>million different gods mean million different religions
abrahamics everyone.

Except "pagan" is a preChristian term describing rustic religion rather than an originally Christian denigrating insult.

Your comparison doesn't really fly.

I am not exaggerating. India has more than a million different gods, with the common person only knowing a few dozen. Often times these gods and beliefs are in direct conflict with one another. It is not a religion in the modern sense of the term, though Hinduism likes to see itself as such, and it is better to see it as either n indigenous religious operating like a world religion, or a multiplicity of religions under one umbrella term. Saying Hinduism is one religion is like saying "Native American religion". At least Shinto and Chinese folk religion follows patterns of self-consistency.

Lower bottom right has basically 0 to do with paganism

>Olympic Games are outlawed for over a millennia
>a millennia
Into the trash it goes

>Founding Fathers of the US for example, were secularists
Except not really.
You had catholics and protestants and deists and masons among them.
Each had their own ideas about how religion should function within the country.
But now you have retards trying to quote mine these people to prove that either they wanted them more christian than the bible belt, or they had a USSR-tier hatred of it.
When you take them as some nebulous hive-mind, it's a schizophrenic mess (like any group of smart, diverse individuals), and the only social ideas they had in common were stuff like sodomy being a criminal offense in every one of the thirteen colonies, minus Georgia+Thomas Jefferson advocating for the castration of fags.

It sounds like you don't know what secular means. It doesn't mean irreligious, it means not imposing a state religion. That's it.

Why do critics of paganism (or "folk religion", I like that term), why do critics of paganism claim that if you don't have a textual tradition, you can't have an authentic religious practice?

These folk religions were never "religions of the book", so it sounds like that you are applying abrahamic standards where it doesn't belong.

Where they* don't belong.

>93
What's hilarious is that a LOT of Pagan segments have contemporary surviving textual traditions.

But yeah, their criteria automatically exclude all religions of pre-complex culture as not actually religions.

Ape! Didn't see you there. What's happening?

Greetings aside, their criteria exclude far more than pre-complex culture (in-as-far as any culture could be considered non-complex) and exclude an enormous amount of religions from complex cultures.